On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[polytropos]

And that much is known without considering the convertibility of transcendentals or the privation view of evil (which I intend to write about in a bit, if I have the time).

Here I defend the convertibility of good and being, the privation view of evil, and the doctrine of analogy, all basic ideas in Thomism. From what I say in that topic, it would be rather easy to demonstrate that the Unmoved Mover is Goodness Itself.

 

[inocente]

To demand that the arguments of philosophy meet the scientific standard of " falsifiableness " makes one wonder how to justify truths based on Faith. It seems to me this standard leaves the value of Faith seriously compromized.

But we’re not discussing faith, we’re discussing Feser’s paper “The medieval principle of motion and the modern principle of inertia”, so complain to him for introducing scientific concepts.

 

[inocente]

I tend to agree. Divine intervention, via miracles, is one thing. If you’ve experienced them, then you know differently. The incarnation is another – Jesus saying, “somebody up there loves you”

But just looking at nature itself, there’s a sense of non-malevolent neutrality, at best. When bad things happen, it’s not because there’s anyone out there in the universe that doesn’t like you (Paul McCartney sings, “no one’s out to break your heart, it only seems that way”).

So the animal who bit you didn’t harbor a grudge against you; it was just hungry, or scared. The sun that gave you sun cancer also warmed your face; the sun isn’t against you, it just is. The water that drowned someone didn’t harbor any malice towards the swimmer; the water was just itself. It was innocent, just being what is is. It did not know that the body swimming in its waters was young and incapable of making informed judgments.

All that is good in our lives, vis-a-vis nature (the water that helps the crops grow) is no more evidently a signal of benevolent concern than the bad things (frost or a tornado ruined the harvest) is a signal of malevolence or ill-will. Nature doesn’t speak, it’s inanimate, so it’s unclear one should ascribe conscious intentionality towards it (but people have certainly done so, assuming that the bounty of nature meant that the gods were happy and that the apparent wrath of nature was a sign that the gods were displeased; sacrifices were an attempt to appease the gods).

As I understand it, the further arguments are that: the Unmoved Mover must be intelligent, therefore conscious and with intentionality (therefore, it is aware of our existence); the Unmoved Mover must be perfect in all respects, therefore good (this definition of “good” loses me, and the equation of Goodness with Being). It seems these arguments you guys have been having are very science-dense, physics-dense, replete with mathematics and logic. A word like “goodness”, though, is a value proposition. All that “pure logic or mathematics or science” can speak of is perfection as quantity, not as quality, or so it seems to me. Just so, there is an amoral definition of perfection, having to do with mere quantity. One can be the “perfect soccer player”; the “perfect businessman”; but also the “perfect criminal who has just pulled off the perfect crime.” This is arete, excellence (a neutral matter of quantity) as opposed to moral goodness (love, benevolent concern; the quality of loving and valuing).

Agreed about good and evil. It seems to me that the argument allows for an unmoved mover acting without malice yet without any interest in us. And since polytropos says the argument doesn’t prove its unmoved mover is the creator of the universe, it appears to hold out the possibility that God is created by the unmoved mover and then goes on to create the universe! Or I guess the unmoved mover could create a whole pantheon of gods which go on to create the universe between them. As long as there’s only one unmoved mover, the argument doesn’t appear to rule out a whole range of options.

 

[inocente]

The argument is saying that any change requires the Unmoved Mover as the first mover because any change (at least in the simultaneous sense) implies a per se causal series. As long as the change is continuing, it would require the Unmoved Mover, because there would still be a per se causal series.

This contradicts both the argument and the real world, casual sequences are not simultaneous: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.”

*It would be a contradiction for the Unmoved Mover to “leave” or stop sustaining the change in the world (since it is Pure Act), so the examples given here don’t make sense. However, since change cannot occur except with a purely actual Unmoved Mover, if the Unmoved Mover (somehow) stopped acting, then yes, the change would stop. (This is, as I mentioned, impossible, so it is not surprising that the result is counterintuitive)
*

This contradicts the argument, which says a mover puts another in motion, not that it sustains it: “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.”

The Unmoved Mover is immaterial (as I’ve mentioned and justified previously). It is not in one place or another. It would not need to “move” (in either the Aristotelian or Newtonian sense) in order to have causal efficacy in a given location.

“Immaterial” rolls easily off the tongue but it’s supposed to be a rational argument, and any argument can be made to work by inventing an invisible undetectable magic genie. Also, if we allow such things in logic, there seems no reason why the thing moved could not also be immaterial, and what it moves and so on, so that the material world is then just a kind of pollution left behind at the end of the chain that never had it in mind . Once you discard one rule of logic you cannot complain when further rules are discarded.

I think you’re wrong to say that the Unmoved Mover has “little or no explanatory power.” I think we can prove enough about the Unmoved Mover to be reasonable in believing that the Unmoved Mover is the same as the revealed God. I have never held that one could demonstrate necessarily that the Unmoved Mover is the revealed God, just that it has most of the qualities usually associated with God.

But if the argument does not prove the unmoved mover is the creator, it’s pure assumption to connect it with God.

I noted that you throw in an unsubstantiated assertion every so often as if it’s a logical argument . Care to provide a proof of the bolded statement? It is in principle impossible to prove that all aspects of matter and energy can be represented mathematically (even if it were true, you would not be able to know that it is true in order to make such an assertion, since you could not know whether there was another aspect of matter you had not represented).

This is a “there are fairies, prove it ain’t so, betcha can’t” argument. Can you name an objective aspect of matter or energy which cannot be represented mathematically?

Neat. But for the topic at hand, a red herring (unless you were to use it to support your argument in some clear way). The phrase “can be seen” seems to sell the game, however; it is a representation, not necessarily reality.

But all knowledge is a representation, what else could it be? And no, not a red herring. Since all the laws of physics are mathematical, one description can readily be translated to another, and because of this other species (and putative aliens) sense the same world in may different ways.

Is a mathematical treatment of the argument possible, can it join the fold? If not there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Interesting thought. But not really relevant to the First Way. “Everything is everything” also seems more like a tautology than a proposition that follows from any relationships between matter, energy, and space-time.

Not sure it’s valid to throw out Eastern philosophies with a wave of the hand, and given the title of the thread, counter arguments might just be relevant.

Yes, particles exhibit wavelike** behavior, which does not mean that all particles are nothing but waves (and even if they were, it would not follow that all particles behave just like waves at the beach, that particles do not act on each other, that all reductions of potency to act are illusory, or anything of the sort). It certainly would not undermine the principle of causality. One would have to explain why purported changes (say, the bonding of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule or the lifting of a book) are actually not changes but just “interference.” And I think what you are here espousing is far from doing that.

Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves. The point is that the argument assumes a naive model of the world and fails without that model.

 

[inocente]

inocente;11144624:

Then as predicted the argument doesn’t attempt to prove we are in the unmoved mover’s image, it’s another assumption, based on interpreting what Aquinas believed.

How does this follow from what I’ve said?

You said “Scholastics like Aquinas took humans to be “rational animals,” so we are created in the Unmoved Mover’s image insofar that we are rational and intellectual (that is what, in the classical theistic understanding, it means for us to be created in God’s image).”

But if we stick to the argument itself, it never attempts to prove we are in the unmoved mover’s image:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. - newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

*I am defensive because remarks like the one I quoted above are essentially insulting to the intelligence of theists. *

You conflate all theists, of which I am one, with uncritical belief in the argument, as if it were the first line of the Apostles’ Creed.

It isn’t. It’s a bit of philosophy. Not revelation, not scripture, just a philosophical argument. Revelation ended with Christ. If the argument was necessary for salvation it would be in scripture. It isn’t.

Why isn’t it in scripture? Why is it so wrong to point out its failings? Why is it impious not to give it an easy ride?

You wrote a lot in that post and appealed again to “the writings of the argument’s best defenders”, as if the argument is incapable of standing on its own two feet. But it seems to me that those defenders have in fact moved it substantially away from what it actually says in its 300 words, so far away that Thomas wouldn’t recognize it.

I find it insulting to be told I’m not a theist unless I contrive to forget even high school physics and basic logic to believe in this unmoved mover. But I ain’t afraid of no ghosts. No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Seriously now, please consider whether you can separate discussing a bit of philosophy from your religious beliefs, and if not whether it’s good for your soul to continue.

 

[inocente]

But you are not even responding to the point he is making. He is not saying that we cannot mathematically represent Newtonian motion as a state of rest in some other reference frame. He never denies that because it is (he would agree) absolutely true. What he is saying is that it does not follow from the mathematical equivalence of two reference frames that “uniform motion is the same as no movement at all, no difference whatesoever.” That is simply a claim that the Newtonian principle of inertia is not making.

Nope, it follows fine. Feser thinks there’s a unique state of no motion but there isn’t. In space there is no point of origin, everything is moving relative to something else. Any inertial frame can be labeled “stationary” and the others “moving”, there is no privileged single frame. Hence the name, relativity. The whole of page 11 is him finding imagined difficulties purely because he fails to understand that.

Again, you do not address what he is arguing. Whether the “stationer” is a “stationer” or a “mover” in two different inertia reference frames is not what he is talking about. In one reference frame, the object in question is stationary. In another reference frame, the object is moving (in the Newtonian sense). In both cases, the object is moving at constant velocity (whether that velocity is, say, v or 0). And Feser’s point is that that is all the principle of inertia tells us. It doesn’t tell us why there is a principle of inertia and why objects tend to move at constant velocity (in any inertial reference frame) unless acted upon by an external force.

Don’t see your point. If a body isn’t moving relative to an inertial reference frame, it is stationary relative to that frame. Hence there is no need to explain why it isn’t moving. We can of course ask why it doesn’t just move off. We can ask why it exists. We can ask whether it is hungry. We can ask many and varied interesting questions. But not having an answer doesn’t make inertia “fishy” (page 11). There’s nothing fishy about something being stationary relative to something else.

What your points seem to rely on is that, for any given object moving at constant velocity, there is some reference frame in which that object appears stationary. You note that there is no absolute inertial reference frame. But that is just not what Feser is even debating. There is likewise no intertial reference frame in which nothing moves, so it is not a consequence of the principle of inertia that there is not actually motion or that Newtonian motion is not actually a change. The only consequence is that we can represent motion as rest in another reference frame, not that all motion is the same as rest.

Read page 11 and 12, he gets stuck on trying to explain infinite inertial motion. If he understood relativity (only simple Newtonian, not the less intuitive Einsteinian) he wouldn’t get stuck.

This is a misrepresentation of what Feser (or any Aristotelian) is commmitted to. The bolded statement is simply false (and, indeed, contradictory) in any inertial reference frame. X’s moving past A would actualize A’s potency to move past X, as much as A’s moving past X would actualize X’s potency to move past A.

This contradicts the argument: “If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again”.

In the argument itself there simply is no need to explain how one body would mysteriously know when it is moving relative to another so as to actualize it’s potency.

*For the reason I noted above, this is based on a flawed interpretation of the situation. If A, B, and C actualize their potencies to move past X, then X is likewise actualizing its potencies to move past A, B, and C. You are trying to find a way to make the principle of causality contradictory, but you seem to be showing that you could only do so by misinterpreting it.

(What you seem to be assuming is that X’s potency to move past A can only be actualized if X is moving in the Newtonian sense in every* reference frame, which would obviously be false since X is of course not moving in every inertial reference frame, since there is one in which it is stationary. But no one is committed to thinking that way, that it is the only way for X’s potency to move past A to be actualized; if, in one reference frame, X is stationary and A moves past it, the potency is still actualized. The fact that X is stationary in one reference frame does not undermine the principle. What you’d have to show is that there is a reference frame in which A never passes X, but since A passing X is dependent on the distance between A and X rather than either of their respective velocities in any inertial reference frame, that would never be true.)

Again, Thomas doesn’t require that bodies mysteriously know when to actualize potencies, it’s just not part of this argument. He simply says that something has the potential to move, and that is actualized when something moves it. The need to try to quantify potentials seems to arise from the attempt to read Thomas’ “put in motion” as “sustain in motion”, but that’s not what he says.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Send your complaints to God.

I thought everyone learned this stuff at school.

But yet you do not know what a contradiction is.

There is no special place anywhere in the universe which is its center

Amazing. And all this while I was told that the universe was expanding. If it is expanding, then it is limited; if it is limited, then it has a centre. But what does that matter? One does not determine location by reference to a centre only; one can and usually does determine location (in terms of contents especially) by reference to a boundary, especially of container. So you have it backwards: the location of the river is not in the moving water itself (else you might never cross the same river twice), but it is in the boundaries of the river.

or origin point,

So much for that Big Bang - didn’t you learn about that in school, or did you miss that day, which perhaps was the same day they taught you what a contradiction was?

therefore there can be no absolute positions.

Debatable even if it were true. Rather, I think it fairer to say that it would be virtually impossible for us to determine absolute locations. But even then, we might propose something as an absolute reference so we could actually make some sense of location. For example, selecting a certain body or cluster of them in the universe.

The position of something can only be described relative to something else.

Yeah. Like a boundary. Or perhaps a central point.

Therefore there can be no absolute velocities,

Does not follow. Difficulties determining absolute velocity does not negate their existence. It just means we can be absolutely certain of it.

the motion of a body can only be measured relative to the motion of another.

Or lack thereof.

Therefore you measure the speed and course of a body relative to you.

Yes. Preferably while not moving myself.

… and the rest of what you say has no bearing whatsoever based on your above errors and confusion.

Here endeth the lesson.

Indeed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve never seen it claimed before that the unmoved mover can’t leave. Perhaps one of you could highlight the relevant point in the translation here.

This only demonstrates that you have a deep prejudice against philosophy because Thomas demonstrates in many places that God never leaves his creation. His whole philosophy is not contained in the few paragraphs that present his Five Ways. I suggest you read S.T., Part 1, Ques 103,104,105. The totality of Thomas’ works cover every aspect of Christian life and spirituality, the totality of God’s relationship to His creatures, covering volumes and volumes.

Futher, Philosophy began with the Greeks and continues to this day, though loosing its way since the 16th century, except in Thomistic Schools. And it has not only served Catholic Theology well but other Christian religions as well. In particular Thomas has contributed to our understanding of the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the Trinity, not only for Catholicism but for all Christian Faiths which adhere to one or more of these mysteries. The Bible alone does not provide the insights he has given us.

And did you know that many of the early Fathers, including Justin, Iranaeus, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen, Dionysias and others were Philosophers? And they all were men of Faith as well.

And to treat Philosophers with ridicule and contempt, to belittle them is not to prove them wrong. It certainly is not to prove Thomas wrong.

To this point you still have not demonstrated you have even the simplest grasp of Thomas.

For example, it is well known that all of material being is composed of some type of ultimate particles ( you refer to them as waves but I doubt that ). But these particles do not function haphazardly, they function under the direction of the particular nature of which they are a part. This applies to natural, non living beings like the elements as well as to living beings. But it is most evident in living beings whose natures are more obvious because of their obvious self preserving, self directed activities.

Thomas points out that it is the natures of things which direct their activity, directing them toward a definite end or goal.

Another point. The First Way of Thomas is not proven wrong because opponents fail to perceive that their objections based on Ballistics are not pertinent. First of all The First Way does not depend on Ballistics. It is a proof based on the underlying structure of all beings. Every being possesses a nature, its " whatness. " When that is undergoing a change, moving from what it is to what it will be, it is moving from a potential it does not have to a new actuality. But it can only do so under the influence of something which is in act, ultimately, pure act.

A projectile receives its power of movement from the influence of such an act. It makes no difference if the projectile continues without stopping or if it stops eventually. The power of movement has been given to it by that which has the power to give, ultimately, pure act.

Now this pure act, since it is the cause of the universe’s movement ( i.e. all its changes of whatever type ), basically causes and directs the universe. Any First Cause, possessing such power, possesses powers that the Christian God possesses. Therefore, Thomas rightly calls the First Cause, God. And as you say, he develops the attributes of this First Cause in the following Articles in Part 1 of the S.T and the S.C.G. and numerous other places.

Now I will close by saying, even if you imagine you have banished the Five Ways into obscurity, you have not banished Thomas, because 99.9% of his Philosophy does not deal with the Five Ways at all. He is of immeasurable value even without the Five Ways.

And: How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Is this not philosophy at the common sense level? And you failed to comment, why? Indeed it seems the Bible itself seems to give praise to human learning, even to philosophy.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

And since polytropos says the argument doesn’t prove its unmoved mover is the creator of the universe, it appears to hold out the possibility that God is created by the unmoved mover and then goes on to create the universe! Or I guess the unmoved mover could create a whole pantheon of gods which go on to create the universe between them. As long as there’s only one unmoved mover, the argument doesn’t appear to rule out a whole range of options.

This is true. The argument proves that the Unmoved Mover is metaphysically ultimate. So in that sense, it does not rule out the existence of Zeus, Hera, Thor, or any other “lesser god.” It would just mean that, even if they do exist, the Unmoved Mover still has existed eternally, unchangingly, and as the cause of any change.

I would identify the Unmoved Mover with the God revealed by the Judeo-Christian tradition because they share many qualities. If the Unmoved Mover is distinct from and created the Judeo-Christian God, it would mean that the Judeo-Christian God was lying when He said His name was “I AM HE WHO IS,” since such a name could only be attributed to a being identical to the Unmoved Mover, which is Pure Act.

This contradicts both the argument and the real world, casual sequences are not simultaneous: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.”

I clarified this in post #78, (I think) before we even started debating. Somewhere in the course of our debate, I also referred you to that post, and you did not respond to it.

So the relevant distinction is between per se and per accidens causal series. I have used the term per se causal series multiple times. This would only seem to demonstrate further that you don’t know how the argument actually goes because you read the text of the First Way out of the context of Aquinas’s metaphysics, which you take to be obviously wrong even though (as you demonstrate right here) you are not aware of what he argues.

Not to mention, the part of the argument that you’ve quoted doesn’t even dispute what I am saying. When I hold fire to wood and the wood burns, the burning of the wood is simultaneous to the fire’s action on it. When I throw a baseball at a window, the window’s breaking is simultaneous to the ball’s hitting it.

The whole discussion about whether the argument relies on the beginning of the universe in time was resolved by reference to simultaneous causal series.

This contradicts the argument, which says a mover puts another in motion, not that it sustains it: “whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.”

The quoted portion could be stated (for modern eyes): “whatever is changing must be changed by another. If that by which it is changed be itself changed, then this also must needs be changed by another, and that by another again.” Where, of course, change refers to a reduction from potency to act by something else in act.

So based on that, any change which is happening must be continually sustained by the Unmoved Mover while it is changing. So whatever is put in motion is moved by another. But it must also be moved by another so long as it is in motion.

“Immaterial” rolls easily off the tongue but it’s supposed to be a rational argument, and any argument can be made to work by inventing an invisible undetectable magic genie. Also, if we allow such things in logic, there seems no reason why the thing moved could not also be immaterial, and what it moves and so on, so that the material world is then just a kind of pollution left behind at the end of the chain that never had it in mind . Once you discard one rule of logic you cannot complain when further rules are discarded.

We seem to be sliding backwards here, since we covered why the argument would lead to an immaterial Unmoved Mover waaay earlier. The argument shows that there must be a first mover to a per se causal series (in which all causal power of secondary movers is derived and simultaneous). Because it is the first mover, it cannot be moved by another (otherwise it would not be the first mover, and would have only derived causal power as well). Since it is not moved by another, it does not move, so it must be an Unmoved Mover. This is only possible if it is purely actual. Since any material thing could move/change, that which is Pure Act must be immaterial.

No rules of logic have been discarded. There is no invisible undetectable magic genie (unless you just rename the Unmoved Mover to be that).

But if the argument does not prove the unmoved mover is the creator, it’s pure assumption to connect it with God.

Let us reflect on what it would mean for a claim to be pure assumption. That would surely mean nothing but assumption. That would mean I would need to have no basis for associating the Unmoved Mover with the God of revelation. But it would seem that every quality which the Unmoved Mover of necessity shares with the God of revelation would give us more of a basis for associating it with the God of revelation. So to claim it is pure assumption seems to be flatly wrong.

Now, if we had absolutely no metaphysical, philosophical reasons to believe that a being like the God of revelations existed… then maybe believing in the God of revelation would be closer to pure assumption.

 

[polytropos]

This is a “there are fairies, prove it ain’t so, betcha can’t” argument. Can you name an objective aspect of matter or energy which cannot be represented mathematically?

Not at all. You could never prove that you have mathematically represented every objective aspect of matter or energy. I am not stipulating or supposing that there is another aspect of matter. I am saying that your claim could never be confirmed. It is, at best, an axiom by which we define “objective aspects of matter and energy” as those which can be mathematically represented.

But all knowledge is a representation, what else could it be? And no, not a red herring. Since all the laws of physics are mathematical, one description can readily be translated to another, and because of this other species (and putative aliens) sense the same world in may different ways.

Is a mathematical treatment of the argument possible, can it join the fold? If not there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

The premises that the argument rests upon are fairly well defined (principle of causality, definition and behavior of per se causal series, etc.). I don’t see any reason why it should be less accessible than various mathematical truths to some other hypothetical species.

Not sure it’s valid to throw out Eastern philosophies with a wave of the hand, and given the title of the thread, counter arguments might just be relevant.

Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves. The point is that the argument assumes a naive model of the world and fails without that model.

Herein lies the problem. I’ll keep these two comments in the same quote tag. You are not really raising “counter arguments.” Saying “everything is everything” does not undermine the argument in any obvious way. Neither does saying, “Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves.” You seem to be intent on choking up these short phrases that are supposed to obviously undermine the argument, but they just don’t. Saying, “Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves,” just does not in any way show that the principle of causality fails. The problem is not that you raise “objections,” it’s that you do not think out the objections at all. It isn’t that the objections are necessarily bad, it’s just that there has been little effort to flesh them out, even though it’s insisted that they undermine Aquinas’s argument. Take, for example, the way you introduced the holographic principle:

But we are not done yet. Have you heard of the Holographic principle?
*
“the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure “painted” on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle*

Is that supposed to be an objection? You quoted and linked to a wikipedia article.

Take one of your other objections:

If everything is everything then the universe could just be.

The universe could just be. What am I supposed to make of that, exactly? It could just be, but obviously what is at stake in these arguments is what “everything” is (whether it includes something like the Unmoved Mover) or whether the universe could, in fact, “just be” without any sort of external Unmoved Mover. Yet you give me “arguments” like this that are supposed to have some obvious meaning (maybe? that is what I would guess from the way in which they are presented).

Here we get a very slightly more substantial objection:

We know that all things are made of particles, we know that for sure. We also know that all particles exhibit wavelike behavior (turns out that Aristotle was the first to suggest this).

So if act and potency were truly fundamental concepts they should apply to waves, since all things are fundamentally made of waves. But waves (think of waves on the beach) cannot be still and cannot move each other, rather they influence by interference (think of the wake of a motor boat in a swell). Hence act and potency are artifacts of a naive view of the world, and cannot represent reality.

Yet, there is still very little attempt to show that “interference” precludes the principle of causality, act, or potency. It is just asserted that they in some way undermine act and potency, purportedly making the notions “artifacts of a naive view of the world.” You say, “Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves. The point is that the argument assumes a naive model of the world and fails without that model.” This has not at all been shown. Talking about waves does not show that the argument’s model of the world or of causality is naive. Objections like this lack the detail that would be necessary to make them substantive and interesting, and are full of handwaving. Even if they could be fleshed out to show something, you have given me almost nothing to respond to since they are just non-sequiturs as stated.

 

[polytropos]

You said “Scholastics like Aquinas took humans to be “rational animals,” so we are created in the Unmoved Mover’s image insofar that we are rational and intellectual (that is what, in the classical theistic understanding, it means for us to be created in God’s image).”

But if we stick to the argument itself, it never attempts to prove we are in the unmoved mover’s image:

…

Rather convenient that you did not quote what I said about the fact that demonstrations of the Unmoved Mover’s various qualities could not fit into the text of the First Way. As I said, the first chapter of a physics textbook is not flawed because it does not prove every other claim in the book. To draw another analogy, the Pythagorean Theorem is not deficient because proofs of it do not contain a proof of the law of cosines. Likewise, Aquinas’s First Way is not inadequate because it does not prove in a single paragraph that men are made in the Unmoved Mover’s image.

You conflate all theists, of which I am one, with uncritical belief in the argument, as if it were the first line of the Apostles’ Creed.

It isn’t. It’s a bit of philosophy. Not revelation, not scripture, just a philosophical argument. Revelation ended with Christ. If the argument was necessary for salvation it would be in scripture. It isn’t.

Why isn’t it in scripture? Why is it so wrong to point out its failings? Why is it impious not to give it an easy ride?

Some of this might make a little bit of sense if I had said anything like “all theists support Aquinas’s First Way,” or, “you’re not a real theist if you don’t agree with the argument,” or, “how could you claim to believe in God?,” or, “you’re a theist! why don’t you just agree?,” or, “the First Way is dogma,” or, “accepting this argument is necessary for salvation,” or, “it’s impious to question the First Way.” However, as I think anyone who read what I wrote would find that I said no such things or anything like them.

As I did say in some of the bits you chose not to quote, what I take issue with is the implication that the defenders of the argument have not considered the most obvious objections. If you had studied their writings and came to that conclusion, then that might be a claim you could hope to make and substantiate. If you had not studied their writings and thought that to begin with, then you still might voice it, but perhaps would not phrase it in such a self-assured way. But since you repeatedly demonstrate that you are not familiar with the nuances of the argument, I just cannot understand why you repeatedly speak as though your objections are so obviously fatal for the argument, like the people who “dogmatically” accept the argument have never considered the objections you’re raising.

I don’t conflate theists with uncritical belief in the argument. I say pretty clearly, “Criticism is fine. Great, in fact, especially if/when it’s novel.” I used to be critical of the argument myself, before I studied it in detail. The implication contra everything I’ve written that the argument is only accepted uncritically by those who accept it is likewise offensive to me.

You wrote a lot in that post and appealed again to “the writings of the argument’s best defenders”, as if the argument is incapable of standing on its own two feet. But it seems to me that those defenders have in fact moved it substantially away from what it actually says in its 300 words, so far away that Thomas wouldn’t recognize it.

The argument, as it is written in Summa Theologiae, is valid, but not fleshed out in full detail. The argument there was a summary meant for people who already were familiar with the argument and Aquinas’s metaphysics. So the metaphysical claims that it relies on (like the principle of causality, definition of per se causal series, etc.) are not enumerated there. If you know them, then you can understand the argument as it is written in ST. Otherwise, you will likely misread it.

Likewise, Aquinas goes on to spend hundreds of pages devoted to drawing conclusions based on the fact that the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act.

I’m not sure how you could say that the argument’s defenders “have in fact moved it substantially away from what it actually says in its 300 words, so far away that Thomas wouldn’t recognize it,” since you seem to have read neither the defenders nor St. Thomas (or, if you have read them, you have made it clear that you did not understand what they were arguing).

I find it insulting to be told I’m not a theist unless I contrive to forget even high school physics and basic logic to believe in this unmoved mover.

If you can quote where I said that you’re not a thiest unless you contrive to forget high school physics and basic logic, I will apologize saying it. But I won’t hold my breath.

 

[polytropos]

In space there is no point of origin, everything is moving relative to something else. Any inertial frame can be labeled “stationary” and the others “moving”, there is no privileged single frame. Hence the name, relativity. The whole of page 11 is him finding imagined difficulties purely because he fails to understand that.

What he is saying does not require a privileged reference frame. What is a “mover” in one frame might be a “stationer” in another. The question is what causes mass to behave according to the principle of inertia, regardless of whether we decide to characterize a given body as moving or stationary. Do massed objects behave that way for no reason? Presumably not.

This does not mean that there is an external force acting on objects to make them stay still or move at constant velocity. That is simply not what is being proposed. What is proposed is whether mass behaves according to the principle of inertia for reason (which the principle of inertia is silent on).

The need to try to quantify potentials seems to arise from the attempt to read Thomas’ “put in motion” as “sustain in motion”, but that’s not what he says.

Motion is change. If I have a soft clay ball in my hand and I squeeze it slowly, it will conform to the shape of my hand. As soon as I stop squeezing (acting), the clay stops conforming; the change stops. “put in motion” is the term Aquinas uses, but from what he is describing it is clear that a mover is required while the motion takes place.

This will be my last reply to this topic.

 

[Portofino]

Agreed about good and evil. It seems to me that the argument allows for an unmoved mover acting without malice yet without any interest in us.

Yes – which would be giving us our Freedom in the most radical sense of the word. And that is, indeed, what superficial or empirical evidence would seem to indicate – the Shoah was a very imperfect thing, and a great evil, yet the unmoved mover neither created it (per the Thomists) nor had the moral obligation to stop it. That, to me, is radical freedom for human beings, more a deistic conception of God than a Judeo-Christian one.

And since polytropos says the argument doesn’t prove its unmoved mover is the creator of the universe, it appears to hold out the possibility that God is created by the unmoved mover and then goes on to create the universe!

Wow – that hadn’t occurred to me All this talk of the Unmoved Mover as God (which Aquinas automatically posited to be the case, as something self-evident) and of God having no moral obligations, contrasts quite interestingly with beliefs about Christ. Christ came to earth and showed himself to be superlatively moral. So, for Christians or for those conversant with Christianity, it is quite understandable that one would expect the Father to be as “morally superlative” as the Son.

It gets complicated, of course, because it’s believed that God answers prayers and continues to do “Christ-like” work as…the Unmoved Mover, presumably, and as the Trinity… It gets confusing – I am mixing the philosophical arguments with the claims of revelation, but I’m assuming the Thomist would posit they are inseparable.

So God has no moral obligations, but intercedes and shows compassion/mercy/forgiveness… Qualities which, indeed, we associate with morality. On the other hand, non-intervention, when one has the power to prevent evil, would be a great evil in a human being. In fact, if a human being had the power to stop the Shoah, and did not, he essentially would be culpable for the deaths of many millions of people. And non-intervention certainly facilities misunderstandings – this sense that we’re pretty much on our own (though we do have each other) which feeds into the prevalent notion that (gasp) God is not a terribly relevant concept in the living of their lives. Statements like “God has no moral obligations towards you” don’t help to relieve these misunderstandings. One can conclude from that, “better learn to help yourself, and don’t wait to be bailed out from on high.”

I guess the unmoved mover could create a whole pantheon of gods which go on to create the universe between them. As long as there’s only one unmoved mover, the argument doesn’t appear to rule out a whole range of options.

That’s still a possibility. Multiple Unmoved Movers, seeding multiple universe. We have a Father, and even if it’s one Father (though it could be a chorus), perhaps other universes have different Fathers, just as different children do.

p.s. there’s a quote Karl Popper I’ve been meaning to share, which resonated with me:

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”

 

[inocente]

Amazing. And all this while I was told that the universe was expanding. If it is expanding, then it is limited; if it is limited, then it has a centre. But what does that matter? One does not determine location by reference to a centre only; one can and usually does determine location (in terms of contents especially) by reference to a boundary, especially of container. So you have it backwards: the location of the river is not in the moving water itself (else you might never cross the same river twice), but it is in the boundaries of the river.

Yikes, see University of California Riverside - math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

*So much for that Big Bang - didn’t you learn about that in school, or did you miss that day, which perhaps was the same day they taught you what a contradiction was? *

Yikes, the big bang was not an explosion in space. - math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

*Debatable even if it were true. Rather, I think it fairer to say that it would be virtually impossible for us to determine absolute locations. But even then, we might propose something as an absolute reference so we could actually make some sense of location. For example, selecting a certain body or cluster of them in the universe.

Yeah. Like a boundary. Or perhaps a central point.*

Please learn something about the big bang. For instance at math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

*Does not follow. Difficulties determining absolute velocity does not negate their existence. It just means we can be absolutely certain of it. *

Please learn something about Newtonian relativity, e.g. start with skullsinthestars.com/2008/02/19/relativity-newtonian-relativity/

… and the rest of what you say has no bearing whatsoever based on your above errors and confusion.

Please come back when you’ve learned something.

 

[Portofino]

And since polytropos says the argument doesn’t prove its unmoved mover is the creator of the universe, it appears to hold out the possibility that God is created by the unmoved mover and then goes on to create the universe! .

Another possibility – God (a conscious, intelligent being) created the unmoved mover! God could have used the unmoved mover as an instrument like a someone lighting a candle would use a match. A fine distinction but you could not know whether God acted directly on the universe, or through the intermediary of the unmoved mover. Perhaps God moves nothing directly, so the unmoved mover would be the medium of initiating motion in the same way His angels are His messengers.

In short, the unmoved mover just explains motion in respects to the physical universe. If a supernatural realm exists, there is nothing to say that something else did not, in turn, create the unmoved mover, interacting with the physical universe in the same way that, in a similar sense, the Son is that aspect of divinity that interacted with the human.

 

[inocente]

This only demonstrates that you have a deep prejudice against philosophy because Thomas demonstrates in many places that God never leaves his creation. His whole philosophy is not contained in the few paragraphs that present his Five Ways. I suggest you read S.T., Part 1, Ques 103,104,105. The totality of Thomas’ works cover every aspect of Christian life and spirituality, the totality of God’s relationship to His creatures, covering volumes and volumes.

The thread is about the unmoved mover argument and what it may or may not prove, not about Thomas’ life work. Questioning whether a philosophical argument works is not “a deep prejudice against philosophy”. Isn’t it kind of the entire point of philosophy to weigh what is and isn’t reasonable?

*Futher, Philosophy began with the Greeks and continues to this day, though loosing its way since the 16th century, except in Thomistic Schools. And it has not only served Catholic Theology well but other Christian religions as well. In particular Thomas has contributed to our understanding of the Incarnation, the Eucharist, and the Trinity, not only for Catholicism but for all Christian Faiths which adhere to one or more of these mysteries. The Bible alone does not provide the insights he has given us.

And did you know that many of the early Fathers, including Justin, Iranaeus, Basil, Cyprian, Augustine, Origen, Dionysias and others were Philosophers? And they all were men of Faith as well.

And to treat Philosophers with ridicule and contempt, to belittle them is not to prove them wrong. It certainly is not to prove Thomas wrong.*

You seem to have jumped threads. On another thread I argued against the lapdog neutered bar room excuse for philosophy which often appears on the internet. On this thread I am not. Please do not jump threads to carry on old debates, it’s against forum rules.

To this point you still have not demonstrated you have even the simplest grasp of Thomas.

To this point it seems I’m the only one not to have read lots of apologists who have twisted his argument to say all things to all men.

For example, it is well known that all of material being is composed of some type of ultimate particles ( you refer to them as waves but I doubt that ). But these particles do not function haphazardly, they function under the direction of the particular nature of which they are a part. This applies to natural, non living beings like the elements as well as to living beings. But it is most evident in living beings whose natures are more obvious because of their obvious self preserving, self directed activities.

Another thing I thought everyone learned in high school physics is that all particles show properties of waves. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Thomas points out that it is the natures of things which direct their activity, directing them toward a definite end or goal.

Yet Feser himself says “Geocentrism, the ancient theory of the elements, and the notion that objects have specific places to which they naturally move, are examples of Aristotelian ideas in physics that have been decisively superseded.” - page 10, faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

Seems I’m the only one on this thread who actually reads what is written.

*Another point. The First Way of Thomas is not proven wrong because opponents fail to perceive that their objections based on Ballistics are not pertinent. First of all The First Way does not depend on Ballistics. It is a proof based on the underlying structure of all beings. Every being possesses a nature, its " whatness. " When that is undergoing a change, moving from what it is to what it will be, it is moving from a potential it does not have to a new actuality. But it can only do so under the influence of something which is in act, ultimately, pure act.

A projectile receives its power of movement from the influence of such an act. It makes no difference if the projectile continues without stopping or if it stops eventually. The power of movement has been given to it by that which has the power to give, ultimately, pure act.

[snip to make post fit 6000 characters]*

Not sure why ballistics got itself capitalized, but we don’t need to go there. All things are ultimately composed of particles. The nature or “what-ness” of an elephant is not the nature of any of the trillions of particles from which it is composed. Thus the nature of an elephant is not fundamental, it is contingent on a particular highly complex pattern of particles. The same follows for all things.

Now I will close by saying, even if you imagine you have banished the Five Ways into obscurity, you have not banished Thomas, because 99.9% of his Philosophy does not deal with the Five Ways at all. He is of immeasurable value even without the Five Ways.

I’ve not been discussing the life works of Thomas, not even the five ways, the thread is only about the first way.

*And: How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Is this not philosophy at the common sense level? And you failed to comment, why? Indeed it seems the Bible itself seems to give praise to human learning, even to philosophy.*

The CCC says revelation finished with the bible, if you want to discuss your notion that revelation finished later you could start a thread, but you may find few agree with you.

 

[Linux]

The thread is about the unmoved mover argument and what it may or may not prove,

I haven’t got time to read this whole debate, so can you please in short tell me what your main problem is with the unmoved mover argument and we can go from there.

 

[inocente]

This is true. The argument proves that the Unmoved Mover is metaphysically ultimate. So in that sense, it does not rule out the existence of Zeus, Hera, Thor, or any other “lesser god.” It would just mean that, even if they do exist, the Unmoved Mover still has existed eternally, unchangingly, and as the cause of any change.

I would identify the Unmoved Mover with the God revealed by the Judeo-Christian tradition because they share many qualities. If the Unmoved Mover is distinct from and created the Judeo-Christian God, it would mean that the Judeo-Christian God was lying when He said His name was “I AM HE WHO IS,” since such a name could only be attributed to a being identical to the Unmoved Mover, which is Pure Act.

Or to rewrite the last sentence “If the Unmoved Mover doesn’t exist it would mean that the Judeo-Christian God was telling the truth when He said His name was “I AM HE WHO IS”.”

inocente;11151409:

This contradicts both the argument and the real world, casual sequences are not simultaneous: “Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.”

I clarified this in post #78, (I think) before we even started debating. Somewhere in the course of our debate, I also referred you to that post, and you did not respond to it.

So the relevant distinction is between per se and per accidens causal series. I have used the term per se causal series multiple times. This would only seem to demonstrate further that you don’t know how the argument actually goes because you read the text of the First Way out of the context of Aquinas’s metaphysics, which you take to be obviously wrong even though (as you demonstrate right here) you are not aware of what he argues.

It might be prudent to keep your temper and check your facts. Even Feser says simultaneity is not a requirement - edwardfeser.blogspot.com.es/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html

*The quoted portion could be stated (for modern eyes): “whatever is changing must be changed by another. If that by which it is changed be itself changed, then this also must needs be changed by another, and that by another again.” Where, of course, change refers to a reduction from potency to act by something else in act.

So based on that, any change which is happening must be continually sustained by the Unmoved Mover while it is changing*. So whatever is put in motion is moved by another. But it must also be moved by another so long as it is in motion.

You’ll need to say why you think this isn’t just playing with words. The argument assumes that the determinists are correct, in which case you throw the ball after a long long sequence of causes and effects which started with (say) the big bang. Then agreed, you could not throw the ball without that whole sequence having been started long ago. (Or a sequence, since there are many alternative possible histories which could end with you throwing the ball). So yes, we could write the entire sequence down in the longest book ever written, which would have to start at the beginning. But that beginning is far removed from the end.

We seem to be sliding backwards here, since we covered why the argument would lead to an immaterial Unmoved Mover waaay earlier. The argument shows that there must be a first mover to a per se causal series (in which all causal power of secondary movers is derived and simultaneous). Because it is the first mover, it cannot be moved by another (otherwise it would not be the first mover, and would have only derived causal power as well). Since it is not moved by another, it does not move, so it must be an Unmoved Mover. This is only possible if it is purely actual. Since any material thing could move/change, that which is Pure Act must be immaterial.

No rules of logic have been discarded. There is no invisible undetectable magic genie (unless you just rename the Unmoved Mover to be that).

The article you linked made that argument, I remembered. You didn’t tackle my objection that the thing moved by the first mover could also be immaterial, and the thing moved by it and so on. But in any event a number of axioms are required, some of which stretch what is called rational by being far from self-evident: That there is an undetectable immaterial. That the immaterial cannot change. That while not changing the immaterial can cause change.

Let us reflect on what it would mean for a claim to be pure assumption. That would surely mean nothing but assumption. That would mean I would need to have no basis for associating the Unmoved Mover with the God of revelation. But it would seem that every quality which the Unmoved Mover of necessity shares with the God of revelation would give us more of a basis for associating it with the God of revelation. So to claim it is pure assumption seems to be flatly wrong.

Now, if we had absolutely no metaphysical, philosophical reasons to believe that a being like the God of revelations existed… then maybe believing in the God of revelation would be closer to pure assumption.

Sure, I mean that God is the Creator, that’s very important, it’s in the first line of both the Apostle’s and Nicene creeds, so if the argument doesn’t prove the unmoved mover is the creator, it’s pure assumption.

I mean, go through both creeds line by line and nothing they say is proved by the argument, not one thing.

 

[inocente]

Not at all. You could never prove that you have mathematically represented every objective aspect of matter or energy. I am not stipulating or supposing that there is another aspect of matter. I am saying that your claim could never be confirmed. It is, at best, an axiom by which we define “objective aspects of matter and energy” as those which can be mathematically represented.

My Oxford Dictionary of Physics defines energy as “a measure of a system’s ability to do work”. It defines mass (matter doesn’t have a scientific definition) as “a measure of a body’s inertia, i.e. its resistance to acceleration”. In both cases, then, they are measures, i.e. quantities, i.e. cannot help but be mathematical.

The premises that the argument rests upon are fairly well defined (principle of causality, definition and behavior of per se causal series, etc.). I don’t see any reason why it should be less accessible than various mathematical truths to some other hypothetical species.

If no mathematical treatment of the argument has been made after all this time, it is probably impossible. I imagine it would be difficult to quantify concepts such as potency without getting inconsistencies.

Herein lies the problem. I’ll keep these two comments in the same quote tag. You are not really raising “counter arguments.” Saying “everything is everything” does not undermine the argument in any obvious way. Neither does saying, “Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves.” You seem to be intent on choking up these short phrases that are supposed to obviously undermine the argument, but they just don’t. Saying, “Waves act on each other, they can cause other waves,” just does not in any way show that the principle of causality fails. The problem is not that you raise “objections,” it’s that you do not think out the objections at all. It isn’t that the objections are necessarily bad, it’s just that there has been little effort to flesh them out, even though it’s insisted that they undermine Aquinas’s argument.

Au contraire, everything is everything undermines the argument since it says there are no things putting other things in motion, there is just one really big thing acting on itself. The problem is that you do not think through your objections to my objections.

Then, regarding waves, they cannot exist except as motion. Thus if particles are ultimately waves, and waves are continuous motion, the line in the argument “for motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality” means that they can but be actual and cannot be potential.

The argument assumes a particular model of the world based on what is “evident to our senses”. My point is that our senses can fool us, the model could well be wrong.

*Take, for example, the way you introduced the holographic principle:

Is that supposed to be an objection? You quoted and linked to a wikipedia article.*

If you want me to expand on points, you’ll have to make fewer of them, as there are only so many hours in a day. I quoted “the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure “painted” on the cosmological horizon” which would mean that any theory about reality must be capable of being stated in terms of that structure, or it would not be a theory about reality, and this would seem to mean that for a theory to say something about reality it must be capable of saying it in math.

*Take one of your other objections:

The universe could* just be. What am I supposed to make of that, exactly? It could just be, but obviously what is at stake in these arguments is what “everything” is (whether it includes something like the Unmoved Mover) or whether the universe could, in fact, “just be” without any sort of external Unmoved Mover. Yet you give me “arguments” like this that are supposed to have some obvious meaning (maybe? that is what I would guess from the way in which they are presented).

The universe could just be would mean it always existed, meaning that the chain of cause and effect goes on to infinity. The argument brushes this aside, but logically it is a possibility. For example the big bang theory holds out the possibility, although many people think it proves something else despite the words of it’s developer, Father Lemaitre: “We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.” - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847

Ran out of time today.

 

[inocente]

Rather convenient that you did not quote what I said about the fact that demonstrations of the Unmoved Mover’s various qualities could not fit into the text of the First Way. As I said, the first chapter of a physics textbook is not flawed because it does not prove every other claim in the book. To draw another analogy, the Pythagorean Theorem is not deficient because proofs of it do not contain a proof of the law of cosines. Likewise, Aquinas’s First Way is not inadequate because it does not prove in a single paragraph that men are made in the Unmoved Mover’s image.

The thread is about the argument, not Thomas’ life work, not our faith in God, not revelation, not a thousand and one different things, just the argument, and it makes no claim we are in God’s image.

Some of this might make a little bit of sense if I had said anything like “all theists support Aquinas’s First Way,” or, “you’re not a real theist if you don’t agree with the argument,” or, “how could you claim to believe in God?,” or, “you’re a theist! why don’t you just agree?,” or, “the First Way is dogma,” or, “accepting this argument is necessary for salvation,” or, “it’s impious to question the First Way.” However, as I think anyone who read what I wrote would find that I said no such things or anything like them.

What? You said “I am defensive because remarks like the one I quoted above are essentially insulting to the intelligence of theists.” It’s still on the thread, your post #177. It’s a big waste of time if we try to make posts not say what they say and arguments say what they don’t say.

As I did say in some of the bits you chose not to quote, what I take issue with is the implication that the defenders of the argument have not considered the most obvious objections. If you had studied their writings and came to that conclusion, then that might be a claim you could hope to make and substantiate. If you had not studied their writings and thought that to begin with, then you still might voice it, but perhaps would not phrase it in such a self-assured way. But since you repeatedly demonstrate that you are not familiar with the nuances of the argument, I just cannot understand why you repeatedly speak as though your objections are so obviously fatal for the argument, like the people who “dogmatically” accept the argument have never considered the objections you’re raising.

You keep repeating this as if it’s a logical argument rather than the emperor’s new clothes. See below for Thomas’ own words.

I don’t conflate theists with uncritical belief in the argument. I say pretty clearly, “Criticism is fine. Great, in fact, especially if/when it’s novel.” I used to be critical of the argument myself, before I studied it in detail. The implication contra everything I’ve written that the argument is only accepted uncritically by those who accept it is likewise offensive to me.

You still said “I am defensive because remarks like the one I quoted above are essentially insulting to the intelligence of theists.” It’s still on the thread, your post #177.

The argument, as it is written in Summa Theologiae*, is valid, but not fleshed out in full detail. The argument there was a summary meant for people who already were familiar with the argument and Aquinas’s metaphysics. So the metaphysical claims that it relies on (like the principle of causality, definition of per se causal series, etc.) are not enumerated there. If you know them, then you can understand the argument as it is written in ST. Otherwise, you will likely misread it.

Likewise, Aquinas goes on to spend hundreds of pages devoted to drawing conclusions based on the fact that the Unmoved Mover is Pure Act.

I’m not sure how you could say that the argument’s defenders “have in fact moved it substantially away from what it actually says in its 300 words, so far away that Thomas wouldn’t recognize it,” since you seem to have read neither the defenders nor St. Thomas (or, if you have read them, you have made it clear that you did not understand what they were arguing).

Nope. You’re over-complicating by not reading what is written. Far from being “a summary meant for people who already were familiar with the argument and Aquinas’s metaphysics”, the argument appears in the Summa, which begins:

Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat – 1 Corinthians 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.

So no, its own author intended it to be self-evident and stand on its own two-feet without any special glasses.

If you can quote where I said that you’re not a thiest unless you contrive to forget high school physics and basic logic, I will apologize saying it. But I won’t hold my breath.

You still said “I am defensive because remarks like the one I quoted above are essentially insulting to the intelligence of theists”, which excluded me from the hollowed ranks of theists on the basis I’d said “that the first-way isn’t part of any creed and no one will get killed if we toss it around, past experience is that supporters get furious when it’s criticized.” Even after I said that, supporters are still getting furious.